I have no issue with a upgunned X-DNH.

Huge problem with that same ship called an XCC.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 05:39 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

That XCM should never have lost to the CX, ever.

---

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 06:12 pm: Edit

Well, gee it's only slightly larger than a BCG. Hardly a DN on steriods.

I have a serious problem with an DNX. For as long as SFB has have X-ship it has been said that DN could not be X-ships. BCH's were eventually upgraded to X-Tech. and that's what X2 is. It's written and published in Module X, IIRC.

I have done some work on the XCC since but it's still basically the same. It is just a step up from a CX that obviously begins with a BCG (for the Fed that is).

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 06:58 pm: Edit

Guys,

I may not have made this clear, but I tried to. Let me try again. I have no illusions about "my" stuff being the one and only way to X2. Loren, John, Jeff and others (sorry if I forgot someone...it wasn't intentional!) all have nifty stuff on John's page. For Loren's X2, an XCC will be fine, and not overpowered. He's right when he says that the current rules say that the first X2 ships were based on BC's. So there's no reason not to try...it's all a matter of balancing it right. And of all the people on this board, I trust his judgement of what's fair and what's not as much as anyone elses.

Now, me, I'm treading lightly with XCC's. But that's me. Due to the nature of my proposal, XCC's are a bit more problematic to deal with. But that's no reason everyone else can't make XCC's galore. I think it's important to look at an individuals SSD's in the context of their proposal. Anyway, 'nuff said on that.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 07:16 pm: Edit

The Fed CX does not begin from the BCG, it begins with a CA hull. The BCG is a different class of ship.

Anyway.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 07:19 pm: Edit

SOrry Mike,

What I meant to say was that the CX should never have lost to the XCM.

The CX is a pure blood warship, designed to kill.

The XCM, whatever it is, (really don't like the idea myself, so I'll call it the XCL), is designed to be a mutli-role ship with some better weapons and shields, but over all a ship of peace that happens to have teeth.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Tuesday, April 20, 2004 - 07:30 pm: Edit

---

Quote:

The Fed CX does not begin from the BCG, it begins with a CA hull. The BCG is a different class of ship.

---

---

Quote:

The XCM, whatever it is, (really don't like the idea myself, so I'll call it the XCL), is designed to be a mutli-role ship with some better weapons and shields, but over all a ship of peace that happens to have teeth.

---

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 07:32 am: Edit

Chris,

That's true...the XCM is a multi-role ship. But, it's still pretty capable. I mean, it'd have to be. In most of the battles it's been played in, it ends up being badly trashed, and even lost one (DXD took it out). I do think both DD's I have played won't stand up to their X1 counterparts very well. They can win, and do, but it's a very near thing.

I had hoped for a good balance. See, I didn't want them to just trounce X1 ships, because as you said, they are made to go to war and the first X2 ships are not. But then again, I think most people who buy the game would expect an X2 ship of a given size to be able to handle itself ably against any equal sized opponent. I may be wrong, but I think there are many people who would be dissapointed to find that their shiny new XD7 or Fed XCM couldn't fight an X1 ship with any real hope of winning. I do think we are more or less on the same page, though, so I do welcome your comments.

By Tos Crawford (Tos) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 09:26 am: Edit

I would like X2 ships to be combat equals to X1 ships +/- 10%. My reasoning is it gives them something to duel.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:53 am: Edit

Toss: You mean besides each other?

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 01:50 pm: Edit

Correct me if I'm wrong but SVC's mandate states that any given BPV of one tech (GW/X1/X2) should have a 50/50 chance against that same BPV of another tech.

Yes I know it depends on the tactics of the skipper, and that depends on the experience of the skipper, and of course we can't be certain right now any of our BPV estimates are on the money, but the mandate stands and it's a good standard to have as it makes X2 "play nice" with pre-X2.

So any X2 ship should have the same overall combat power of an equivalent-BPV GW/X1 ship. Note that it's equivalent-BPV not equivalent-class. Theoretically if the technology is designed a certain way you could have an X2-FF have a BPV of 180 and thus take on and possibly defeat a GW-BCH with BPV 180.

Forget about a GW-BCH being equal to an X2-BCH. It's not likely to happen unless we merely make the technology equal in "power" but different in "performance." Some things are going to be more powerful in X2, some things are going to be just plain different, some things are going to be more flexible, and some things might not be changed much at all.

I think I'm just restating points made time and time before, but it seems like we get lost in our minutiae and forget the basics. Maybe I'm stepping on toes here and it's not necessary or maybe I'm not stepping on toes, but I just think that sometimes we assume that a GW is an X1 is an X2 and it's not the case nor should it be. X2 is supposed to be different (granted a nebulous term). I'm no expert but sometimes I get this gut reaction. Anyway forgive my rant.

By Mike Raper (Raperm) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 02:01 pm: Edit

No strain, Brodie. That's how I see it, too, and I'm sure others do as well. I think (and I could be wrong) that Chris' objection to XCC's and the like is not that they're BC-based, but that they are just too powerful, period. A CCX with a BPV of 350 or so is an extremely powerful ship, and can only duel with several ships at once, or with battleships. I don't approve or dissaprove...as I said, CCX's are very nebulous ground for me right now. But I think that's the crux of Chris' (and others) objections...that some designs are just too much, particularly for ships that are not designed primarily as warships. The X1 ships were, so there is a school of thought here that says an X1 DD should be more combat capable than an X2 DD, but less well-rounded. Make sense? For example, this design of a Fed XCC I made was never posted, because I abandoned it when I quit using the P5 and went off in a different direction. For a 2XCC, it's pretty modest...but even it may be more than Chris and some others want to see.

And Chris, if I put words in your mouth that are wrong, I didn't mean to. The above is just how I see your concerns.

By Alan Trevor (Thyrm) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 02:31 pm: Edit

Well, I can see the Battleship-equivalent X2 ships showing up after the Xork invasion, but think that pre-Xork X2 Cruisers should be more like CCX or DNH equivalent ships due to their general purpose designs. I don't think you can simply rule out cruisers with GW-era Battleship level combat power eventually appearing. MY Cruisers will beat EY Dreadnoughts and X-Cruisers are at least approximately comparable to GW Dreadnoughts, depending on the specific ships involved and the tactical situation.

By the time X2 technology is well established (i.e. Xork era rather than beginning of X2 era) I don't think it's implausible that you could create Battleship combat power in a Crusier (or BCH) sized hull, given both the latest technology and combat optimized designs. I'm more dubious about these ships appearing early in the X2 era. If we're going to have super ships in early X2, I for one, would rather they be true Dreadnoughts using X1 tech (which by this time is well established). But of course that's a very contentious point.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 06:23 pm: Edit

I know for a fact that CFant understands that equal BPV over the eras should be 50/50 wins. What he is talking about is the class of ship to the class of ship.

I think he doesn't want the XCL to be more combat effective than a CLX because the CLX was designed to fight a war while the XCL comes after the war.

My problem with this is two fold. One, in Y205 nobody can possibly know there will be no war. The General War was sort of interrupted just before it was over. Animosity was set aside for obvious reasons but it surely still remains. I think it will take the Xork Invasion to make us all real friends. The ISC and Andros were only a start. Third times a charm!

I think X2 will allow the ship to remain equal or slightly more effective per class but also have room for being a well rounded ship. That's what will make them so useful. If there were to be NO improvement in technology then yes, the next line of ships would indeed be less combat effective in order to be better rounded vessels. But that's not what happens. In fact, X2 represents the NEXT Tech. Level. There IS an advance in technology.

I say these advances will allow the races to field ships that are highly effective in all areas.

Take the Ph-5. This powerful new weapon means there can be fewer units and still keeps the effectiveness high. This translates to more room on the hull for non-combat missions. New structural designs also add room. New electronics allow for a wider mission spectrum, such as Special Bridge (which would have non-combat uses too).

My proposed turbo-warp is a pair 16 point warp engines on a cruiser; higher technology make for a small foot print on the hull. Add the turbo warp and the engine is physically the same as the old cruiser but produces ~50% more power.

It was written the BCH was the extreme representation of the cruiser design and so was not able to handle the stresses of X-Tech. but that eventually these problems were solved and those ships became X2. My proposals have been centered on ideas that keep this in mind; reducing stress on the hull design while producing a more capable ship.

By John Trauger (Vorlonagent) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit

My thought is that nobody ever builds their ships to be second best. They build to the expected mission(s).

War-production hulls (and regardless of ADB agreement, I include BCHs and DNHs in this) are designed exclusively for ship-kill. Cruise time is reduced because you expect them to be in fights before too long. Other stuff, such as living quarters is skimped on as well.

Figure for X2, cruise limits and other such factors get loostened again to more or less pre-war expectations. Nobody expects X2 ships are going to be putting out from base, getting in a fight and coming back, rinse and repeat in quick succession.

That means a drop in weapons density and perhaps power. Then you get some of that back (maybe even come out ahead) based on the improved technology that comes with X2.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 08:25 pm: Edit

John, exactly. And the expected mission is one of peace and rebuilding.

Loren, the General War did indeed end. The ISC invasion did not start until after GW hostilities ended, see the timeline on posted on this website somewhere.

Also, Loren has my perspective down pat. I do not want a XCL to beat an CLX in a straight up fight.

I would prefer that X1 and X2 stay in a very close BPV area to each class of ship. The CX is a ship killer, while the XCA is back to being the good old (Federation anyway) explore and anti-piracy and can also fight, being more efficient for all three, but not the best at anything.

So, on that XCA you have 8 P-5s or whatever and 2 P6s, same warp as the CX, (maybe even a little less....GASP) some AWR and whatnot. Everything improves just a little. I kinda like the idea of the Photon in X2 going back to a 2 turn only weapon, and giving it a little more yield, 20 at the absolute max.


Again, the reason I feel this way is that X1 is not old, it is not outdated, there is no reason to build a ship that is as expensive as your pure warships for multi purpose missions(X2) when you still have a basically brand new technology that will kick ass and chew bubblegum(X1).

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 08:55 pm: Edit

CFant, you realize that my entire proposal fits that line of thinking pretty well, except for of course the XCC. I do intend that this ship be in a class by it's self. It serves several game functions as well.

In addition to why I think the races would produce such a ship it will also appease the power players who love that sort of thing. I also believe that SFB should try to paralell the Star Trek trends when it can. The reason many new players come to SFB is because of Star Trek. As much as we like to think of SFB as the real Star Trek this view will not be taken by inexperienced players coming from a Star Trek viewing back ground. New players expect to see starships get bigger each generation. The cool thing is that in the movies and T.V. shows not all starships get bigger. Indeed, one could say only one class per generation gets really larger.

So, I chose to paralell this by introducing this design for an XCC. While some may detest it others will dig it and have fun with it because it is everything you could want in a SFB ship without becomming, oh what's the word, munchkin. Those that detest it can not use it. It is, after all, only one class. No other ship is like it. And the races only get a few, one per theater and the home fleet, then another ten year round gives them two per theater. There will never be any fleets of XCC's.

All the rest of the other class's will have X1 and even GW counter parts.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 09:37 pm: Edit

Loren, the presence of your DNX(XCC) pretty much puts me off your ideas along those lines. Antying that includes the XCC of your in a proposal I disagree with.

By Christopher E. Fant (Cfant) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 10:09 pm: Edit

just for the record, and so you guys can see some of my ideas of what I want.....

This is what I am looking at for a X2 CLX...

http://home.comcast.net/~andro-siege/federation/ships/F-KOR.GIF

This one is an old copy that is not quite right anymore, but it is the idea. Figure 6 P5s and 2 P6s 360, the 'pod' with the torps and phasers is modular, allowing to change missions by swapping out the pod. Also, it would use photons, not quantums. The shields are bigger than I want now and a few other things.

The Reg boxes are Shield generators that allow a regeneration of shield boxes as long as they are powered.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:03 pm: Edit

Wow, that is also very similar to a design I have. I don't have the turret thing but with out that it's very similar.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Wednesday, April 21, 2004 - 11:26 pm: Edit

So far as I can interpret from this and other threads, it seems like Loren, Mike R., John T., Cfant, and myself are actually on the same page in most respects. We really seem to differ only in detail, and maybe a small handful of "big ideas." I'm guessing others here are thinking along similar lines as well. Whether we're in the "right" category remains to be seen as SVC hasn't chimed in here yet, but I think we're keeping with his present mandates. I guess we're just running into the ol' limits of BBS conversation (still the best format for this purpose short of meeting in person). We're saying almost the same thing but not with the same language. C'est la vie.

By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 07:56 pm: Edit

I'm more of an F&E guy, but I would like to point out a few things:
Is there going to be a "new" phaser-4 for Bases possibly the PH-7?

Are there going to be X-2 war varinets (CW,DW,BCH,DNH,ect.) I would think that X-1 would be as far as they go, and have new CL, DD, FF, and CA designs? Just have the war varients come out when a major war begins.

Lastly, are we going to have a begining version of the X-2 phaser? Much like how the P-2 came out before the P-1.

By Loren Knight (Loren) on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 08:05 pm: Edit

The Ph-1 is the Ph-2 to the Ph-5.

We've discussed the Ph-4 but that went back burner until the level of need was established by the capabilities of the X2 designs. Creating a X2 Ph-4 would be a little cart before the horse at this point, IMO.

Variants: I think there should be since the veriety of missions will increase during the X2 era.

By Grant Strong (Phoenix) on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 08:19 pm: Edit

I don't have problem with varients for the main ships(XCV, XSC, X-escort, ect.), but I'm not wanting the "war ships"(cheap to build for their fire power) to come out till the war starts.
By the way thanks for the update.

By R. Brodie Nyboer (Radiocyborg) on Thursday, April 22, 2004 - 09:45 pm: Edit

Grant that's pretty much what I'm thinking, and others as well. SVC had said that X2 must "play nice" with GW/X1 meaning that they must have a fighting chance against X2.

As a result, a group of us are looking at going back to "basics" by designing early-X2 (Y205-215ish) ships that aren't as combat-potent as X1 counterparts. Even so, X2 components are generally more potent/capable. This stance gives us the option of building war classes and heavy classes (arguably the same thing).

That's been my take on it for awhile now.